James Gurney

This daily weblog by Dinotopia creator James Gurney is for illustrators, plein-air painters, sketchers, comic artists, animators, art students, and writers. You'll find practical studio tips, insights into the making of the Dinotopia books, and first-hand reports from art schools and museums.

CG Art

Contact

or by email:gurneyjourney (at) gmail.comSorry, I can't give personal art advice or portfolio reviews. If you can, it's best to ask art questions in the blog comments.

Permissions

All images and text are copyright 2015 James Gurney and/or their respective owners. Dinotopia is a registered trademark of James Gurney. For use of text or images in traditional print media or for any commercial licensing rights, please email me for permission.

However, you can quote images or text without asking permission on your educational or non-commercial blog, website, or Facebook page as long as you give me credit and provide a link back. Students and teachers can also quote images or text for their non-commercial school activity. It's also OK to do an artistic copy of my paintings as a study exercise without asking permission.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

(Video link) Boston Dynamics has introduced a new walking vehicle that is designed to carry heavy payloads through rough terrain. Powered by an internal combustion engine, it can stand up and navigate through heavy brush. The head is packed with terrain sensors that allow it to follow a person walking in front of it.

The shot of the two robots coming down the road looks fake to me although I know its real. I think the way the "body" stays level during the strides is throwing me off. You'd expect more bounce from an animal.

And don't give me the "they're costly to keep and to feed" cliche. I bet darpa spent enough money--and effort--on that thing to feed 100s of horses for years. Besides, if that thing is anything like a car, here goes the "saving keep cost" argument into smog.

Do you know the "If it moves like a (--) and looks likes a (--)" argument? And that thing doesn't even *look* like a horse (obviously more like a mechanical monster from a cheap sci-fi flick).

A REAL horse has much more to it than movement.

James, I'd be very interested to know your personal view on this. And don't worry, no matter which way it goes, I won't be upset. Your beautiful art--and generous blog--make up for any difference of opinions!

Anonymous, you've raised an excellent point. I'm sure you're right that real horses could do the job of carrying payloads and following leaders far more effectively than these bumbling machines. I don't know the price tag for development and production of these things, but I'm sure it's in the multimillions.

I would add to your questions: Why does it always have to be the military that leads such creative development? To which the answer is probably: Follow the money.

As a geek and an engineer at heart, I suppose the best answer that it is in the nature of human engineer to invent things, and I am always of two minds with such innovations. Airplanes fly higher than birds and cars drive faster than horses, but as you suggest, height and speed don't necessarily improve life, and something is lost for everything that is gained.

Real horses have to be fed, cleaned and housed whether they are working or not. A robot can be turned off and put into storage. I would be willing to bet that the cost of caring for real horses would far outstrip the development and construction costs of the robots. Also there is a humanitarian issue. Even in peace-time working horses suffer greatly. Army horses and mules in war-time died in droves both on the battle field and from shear exhaustion.